Just because I am curious

[Crimefree]

Which rights are those? The ones "invented" through judicial activism? Only a well regulated Militia is expressly declared as necessary to the security of a free State. Why should potential, Insurrectionists of the People and potential Rebels of the People not have to be subject to the Police Power, if they are not entitled to the "character of a well regulated Militia" of the United States.

No doubt you have an explanation for the Declaration of Independence which was signed by all 13 states as a so called quoter of law. Can you tell me what the Preamble means that was accepted by all 13 states as an expression of their will and law.

Obviously this applies to Martian only.

Preamble - Outlines a general philosophy of government that justifies revolution when government harms natural rights.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Last I checked that is a legal document that is binding on the states. You may want to read it and try to comprehend.

 

[danielpalos]

Since neither are superior to our rights you are blowing smoke.

Those are our "rights".

Well regulated Militias of the United enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

Wellness of regulation comes from our federal Congress.

 

[danielpalos]

Merda

Nada pero falacia por tu Causa?

 

[danielpalos]

No doubt you have an explanation for the Declaration of Independence which was signed by all 13 states as a so called quoter of law. Can you tell me what the Preamble means that was accepted by all 13 states as an expression of their will and law.

Obviously this applies to Martian only.

Preamble - Outlines a general philosophy of government that justifies revolution when government harms natural rights.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Last I checked that is a legal document that is binding on the states. You may want to read it and try to comprehend.

You may want to try to be more relevant in your arguments. Only our supreme laws of the land matters.

Only a well regulated Militia is expressly declared as necessary to the security of a free State.

Why should potential, Insurrectionists of the People and potential Rebels of the People not have to be subject to the Police Power, if they are not entitled to the "character of a well regulated Militia" of the United States?

If you can't answer that simple question, why do you believe you understand the concepts and are merely, misdiagnosing the Body politic, merely for the sake of a potential profit motive.

 

[Crimefree]

You may want to try to be more relevant in your arguments. Only our supreme laws of the land matters.

Only a well regulated Militia is expressly declared as necessary to the security of a free State.

Why should potential, Insurrectionists of the People and potential Rebels of the People not have to be subject to the Police Power, if they are not entitled to the "character of a well regulated Militia" of the United States?

If you can't answer that simple question, why do you believe you understand the concepts and are merely, misdiagnosing the Body politic, merely for the sake of a potential profit motive.

Militia being defined as "the people"

Because the people are also entitled to a well regulated government which you would know if you had been paying any attention instead of advancing socialist control policy. That means they are entitled to OVERTHROW GOVERNMENT if need be and must have the means to do that.

 

[Crimefree]

Nada pero falacia por tu Causa?

Jy blaas rook

 

[Crimefree]

You may want to try to be more relevant in your arguments. Only our supreme laws of the land matters.

The Judiciary is subservient and controlled by our rights. What is your point?

If you can't answer that simple question, why do you believe you understand the concepts and are merely, misdiagnosing the Body politic, merely for the sake of a potential profit motive.

Apparently you cannot. It really is pretty simple even a child or moron could understand it unless they had an ulterior motive.

 

[danielpalos]

Militia being defined as "the people"

Because the people are also entitled to a well regulated government which you would know if you had been paying any attention instead of advancing socialist control policy. That means they are entitled to OVERTHROW GOVERNMENT if need be and must have the means to do that.

Not just Any militia of the People, but Only, a well regulated Militia is expressly declared as necessary to the security of a free State; thus, you are simply appealing to ignorance.

 

[danielpalos]

Jy blaas rook

Helemaal niet, het is alleen jij die geen geldige argumenten hebben en moet projecteren, als gevolg.

 

[danielpalos]

The Judiciary is subservient and controlled by our rights. What is your point?

Apparently you cannot. It really is pretty simple even a child or moron could understand it unless they had an ulterior motive.

Have you missed our entire discussion? Our federal Constitution is the supremest law of the land. If it isn't expressly declared it doesn't exist if we have to quibble.

 

[Crimefree]

Have you missed our entire discussion? Our federal Constitution is the supremest law of the land. If it isn't expressly declared it doesn't exist if we have to quibble.

Have you missed a few hundred responses and treated them with contempt?
It may well be but it is not the supreme authority is it. That power rests with the people who own the rights.

Government governs with the CONSENT of the governed. Do you know what that means? Do try to keep up. That is expressly declared. It is undeniable. It is unavoidable.

 

[danielpalos]

Have you missed a few hundred responses and treated them with contempt?
It may well be but it is not the supreme authority is it. That power rests with the people who own the rights.

Government governs with the CONSENT of the governed. Do you know what that means? Do try to keep up. That is expressly declared. It is undeniable. It is unavoidable.

Yes, State elected representatives have the consent of their electorate or they wouldn't be in office. Why circumvent the "will of the People" but Only when it is not what you like?

 

[Crimefree]

Yes, State elected representatives have the consent of their electorate or they wouldn't be in office. Why circumvent the "will of the People" but Only when it is not what you like?

Because the will of the people is a democracy which the US is not. Or did you not know that? Rhetorical question.

Consent does not equal elected. The power of the people is not transferred it is retained not even when you don't like it. Creating fallacies to prove a point again?

 

[danielpalos]

Because the will of the people is a democracy which the US is not. Or did you not know that? Rhetorical question.

Consent does not equal elected. The power of the people is not transferred it is retained not even when you don't like it. Creating fallacies to prove a point again?

Yes, it does, especially if you voted for them.

 

[Crimefree]

Yes, it does, especially if you voted for them.

Alice in wonderland does not apply. The will of the people and government is bound by the constitution and our rights. You know it and I know it. Stop pretending there is a higher authority like the states, government or the legislature.

Consent does not equal elected as consent can be withdraw at any time. Get a dictionary you desperately need one. Government governs with the CONSENT of the governed. You seem to be mired in irrelevant trivia and, fallacy rather than pertinent facts to the detriment of our rights.

 

[danielpalos]

Alice in wonderland does not apply. The will of the people and government is bound by the constitution and our rights. You know it and I know it. Stop pretending there is a higher authority like the states, government or the legislature.

Consent does not equal elected as consent can be withdraw at any time. Get a dictionary you desperately need one. Government governs with the CONSENT of the governed. You seem to be mired in irrelevant trivia and, fallacy rather than pertinent facts to the detriment of our rights.

How do you take your vote back? That experiment in California was a waste of time and demonstrated politics as usual.

 

[Crimefree]

How do you take your vote back? That experiment in California was a waste of time and demonstrated politics as usual.

WTF has a vote got to do with who governs by consent of the people? The people may not rescind that consent with an individual or collective vote. Maybe in wonderland.

 

[danielpalos]

WTF has a vote got to do with who governs by consent of the people? The people may not rescind that consent with an individual or collective vote. Maybe in wonderland.

Voting for someone is a form of "consent" to be "governed".

 

[CRUE CAB]

Have you missed our entire discussion? Our federal Constitution is the supremest law of the land. If it isn't expressly declared it doesn't exist if we have to quibble.

"supremest" law of the land. Tells you all folks what a doofus this guy is.

 

[danielpalos]

"supremest" law of the land. Tells you all folks what a doofus this guy is.

My line of reasoning tells you I understand some of the concepts:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

You cannot appeal to ignorance regarding our supremest law of the land.

 

[TurtleDude]

"supremest" law of the land. Tells you all folks what a doofus this guy is.

I would argue that continuing to debate him given the idiocy gibberish contained in his posts is "doofus":mrgreen:

 

[danielpalos]

Have you missed our entire discussion? Our federal Constitution is the supremest law of the land. If it isn't expressly declared it doesn't exist if we have to quibble.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

That clause cannot be null and void from inception.

Why does the right complain about selective enforcement of the laws?

 

[Crimefree]

Have you missed our entire discussion? Our federal Constitution is the supremest law of the land. If it isn't expressly declared it doesn't exist if we have to quibble.

That clause cannot be null and void from inception.

Why does the right complain about selective enforcement of the laws?

Spices, being necessary for a good meal, the right of the people to keep and eat salt, shall not be infringed.

 

[danielpalos]

Spices, being necessary for a good meal, the right of the people to keep and eat salt, shall not be infringed.

False analogies mean nothing.

This is what our Second Amendment would need to say, to carry that point of view: A well regulated Militia, being unnecessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[Crimefree]

False analogies mean nothing.

This is what our Second Amendment would need to say, to carry that point of view: A well regulated Militia, being unnecessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

No problem let me fix that.

Spices being necessary for a good meal, the right of the people to keep and eat salt, shall not be infringed.

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

You will note that the prefix "un"necessary was not used and its use is not only an attempt to change and falsify the meaning you have shown no proof it was intend.